Next Article in Journal
LiDAR-Based Modeling of Individual Tree Height to Crown Base in Picea crassifolia Kom. in Northern China: Comparing Bayesian, Gaussian Process, and Random Forest Approaches
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Depopulation on Forest Fires in Spain: Primary School Distribution as a Potential Socioeconomic Indicator
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 15
Issue 11
10.3390/f15111939
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Naturally Deposited Charcoal Enhances Water Retention Capacity of Subtropical Forest Soils

by
Liutao Cheng
1,
Kuan Wang
1,
Zhi Yao
1,
Xian Liu
1,
Dan Zhao
2,3,* and
Yuzhe Wang
1,*
1
College of Juncao Science and Ecology, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China
2
Center for Environmental Risk and Damage Assessment, Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, Beijing 100041, China
3
State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Environmental Damage Identification and Restoration, Beijing 100041, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2024, 15(11), 1939; https://doi.org/10.3390/f15111939
Submission received: 13 October 2024 / Revised: 30 October 2024 / Accepted: 1 November 2024 / Published: 4 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Forest Soil)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Charcoal, a byproduct resulting from incomplete combustion of biomass in fire events, can modify the physical properties of soil due to its high porosity and large surface area. To evaluate the impact of fire-deposited charcoal on soil hydraulic characteristics, soil–charcoal mixtures were analyzed to investigate the effects of different application doses (wt%: 0, 1%, 3%, 5%, 10% and 20%) of charcoal on soil bulk density (BD), porosity (total, capillary, and non-capillary), residual moisture after free drainage (RM), saturated water content (SC), and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) of loamy and sandy soils collected from subtropical forests in south China. The results showed that the impact of charcoal on soil’s physical and hydraulic properties depends on the soil type and the application dose. The incorporation of charcoal significantly decreased the BD of sandy soil (p < 0.001), while a significant decrease in BD in loamy soil was only observed as a result of the higher application doses (10% and 20%) (p < 0.001). Charcoal application doses of 5% or higher led to a significant increase in the total porosity (TP) of sandy soil (p < 0.001) and doses of 3% and 20% resulted in a significant increase in the TP of loamy soil (p < 0.001). The capillary porosity (CP) of both sand and loamy soils significantly increased when charcoal was applied at doses of 3% or higher (p < 0.001). The minimum charcoal application dose that significantly increased the RM in sandy soil was 5%, while for loamy soil, the minimum effective dose was 10%. Charcoal applied at a dose of 3% significantly increased the Ks of sandy soil (p < 0.001), while no significant effect on Ks was observed for loamy soil (p > 0.05). Collectively, our findings suggest that fire-derived charcoal enhances the soil water-retention capacity in subtropical forests, with the effects becoming more pronounced at higher application doses and being particularly notable in sandy soil compared to loamy soil.

1. Introduction

Fire is a prevalent disturbance in global terrestrial ecosystems [1,2]. The frequency and severity of wildfires are increasing in many regions due to climate change [3,4]. To mitigate wildfire risks, enhance wildlife habitats, and clear harvest residues in forest ecosystems, low-intensity prescribed burning is commonly employed [5,6,7]. In addition to its impacts on soil carbon (C) and nutrient stock and their persistence [8,9], fire can also affect belowground soil hydraulic properties [10]. Those properties regulate water and nutrient availability for plant growth, ultimately influencing aboveground community composition and overall plant productivity.
Soil hydraulic characteristics, including water retention and infiltration, are essential for assessing the soil’s capacity to retain moisture and its associated hydrological effects [11]. Soil saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) is indicative of soil texture, bulk density (BD), organic matter content, and pore distribution, providing valuable insights into the soil’s ability to transport and retain water [12,13]. Previous studies have demonstrated that Ks is influenced by soil texture, structure, and pore characteristics, including their configuration, size, shape, and distribution [14]. Fire can significantly alter soil’s hydraulic properties by affecting its chemical composition and structure [15]. A water-repellent layer in post-fire soil is generally formed due to the volatilization and subsequent condensation of hydrophobic organic compounds during heating [16]. Additionally, fire can exacerbate soil erosion by compromising soil structure and pore integrity [17], thereby increasing water repellency [18,19]. Soil hydraulic properties are closely related to soil erosion, a process that leads to the loss of soil nutrients through surface runoff and leaching [20,21], ultimately resulting in a deterioration in soil quality and a reduction in ecosystem productivity [22]. Therefore, it is essential to investigate the influence of fire and its legacy on soil hydraulic properties in fire-affected ecosystems.
While many studies have examined the effects of engineered biochar on soil hydraulic properties, less attention has been given to charcoal produced during natural fire events. Although both biochar and fire-deposited charcoal are forms of carbonized organic materials, they differ significantly in their production processes and inherent properties. Biochar is produced through pyrolysis in an anoxic environment, allowing for the controlled enhancement of attributes such as C content and porosity. When incorporated in agricultural soils, biochar has been shown to improve soil fertility, increase water retention capacity, and enhance C sequestration [23]. In contrast, fire-deposited charcoal is generated under uncontrolled conditions, resulting in a heterogeneous composition with varying specific surface areas and porosities [24]. Ahmad et al. demonstrated that alterations in soil macropores impact hydraulic conductivity and aeration, while modifications in micro- and mesopores influence water retention capacity and effective water content [25]. Previous studies have shown that biochar application alters the ratios of large, medium, and small porosities in soil, thereby enhancing water retention capacity and hydraulic conductivity [26,27]. While some studies have confirmed that biochar increases soil water retention capacity and Ks [14,28], others have found no significant difference in those properties as a result of biochar addition [29,30]. The variability in findings across previous studies might be attributed to differences in soil types and textures [28].
The effects of naturally deposited charcoal and engineered biochar on soil hydraulic properties are influenced by the application doses [31]. For instance, Zhou et al. applied a substantial amount of biochar (9.0 t ha−1 year−1) to sandy loamy soil in the North China Plain and observed a reduction in soil BD, along with improvements in total porosity, macro-porosity (>30 μm), hydraulic conductivity, and water-holding capacity. In contrast, they found no significant differences with a lower dose of maize cob-derived biochar (4.5 t ha−1 year−1) [32]. Previous research conducted in Germany showed that a significant decrease in BD and Ks occurred as a result of biochar application, and was accompanied by a significant increase in water retention in the sandy loamy soil [28]. A study found that no significant impact on the water retention or hydraulic conductivity of various soil types resulted from charcoal application [33]. Lim et al. found that the addition of pine wood chip biochar increased the Ks of loamy and clay soils, while a decrease in Ks was observed in sandy and fine sandy soils [12]. Zare et al. found that the addition of walnut shell biochar significantly increased the Ks of clay loamy soil but had no effect on the Ks of sandy loamy soil [34]. Thus, the impact of biochar on soil hydrological properties varies depending on application doses and soil types.
The overall objective of this study was to examine the impact of naturally deposited charcoal on soil hydraulic properties in forest ecosystems, with a focus on how these influences vary according to soil types and application doses. To achieve this, loamy and sandy soils were collected from subtropical forests in south China to investigate the effects of fire-deposited charcoal on soil physical and hydraulic properties across a range of application doses (0%, 1%, 3%, 5%, 10%, and 20%). We hypothesized that (i) fire-derived charcoal improves soil’s water retention capacity, with the degree of improvement increasing as a function of the quantity of charcoal added; (ii) the effect of charcoal application on soil’s water retention capacity varies with soil type, with more pronounced effects on improving the water retention capacity of sandy soil than loamy soil.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Charcoal and Soil Preparation

Soil samples were collected in March 2022 in 0–20 cm depth increments from two forest plantations in Fujian Province, southeastern China. Sandy soils were collected from the Pinus massoniana plantation at Luoyuan State-Owned Forest Farm in Fuzhou, Fujian Province (119°32′46.11″ E, 26°28′3.81″ N). Loamy soil samples were collected from the Cunninghamia lanceolate plantation at Xiqin Forest Farm in Nanping City, Fujian Province (26°34′25″ N, 118°06′44″ E). The basic properties of the two soils examined in this study are summarized in Table 1. The charcoal used in this study was collected from a clearcut harvest site of P. massoniana plantation subjected to broadcast burning at the Luoyuan State-Owned Forest Farm (Figure 1). The charcoal had a pH of 7.3, C content of 77.22%, N content of 0.42%, specific surface area of 354.00 m2·g−1, total pore volume of 0.19 cc·g−1, and average pore size of 2.10 nm. Soils and charcoal were air-dried, ground, and passed through a 2 mm sieve in preparation for the hydraulic analysis experiment described below.

2.2. Experiment Design and Treatment

Soil–charcoal mixtures were prepared to assess the impact of naturally deposited charcoal from fire events on the hydraulic properties of sandy and loamy soils. The treatments consisted of six different charcoal application doses (wt%): 0%, 1%, 3%, 5%, 10%, and 20%, each replicated three times, yielding a total of 36 cutting-ring (Shangyuchangfeng, Shaoxing, China) samples. First, the weight of each cutting ring (50.46 mm diameter, 50 mm height) was recorded prior to use (M0). A single piece of filter paper was placed at the bottom of the cutting ring to prevent soil dispersion. The mixture of charcoal and soils was subsequently added to the cutting ring, and the weight was recorded (M1). The samples were then immersed in distilled water for 24 h, maintaining the soil surface just below the water level throughout the absorption process until fully saturated. Once saturated, the soil was removed, and the excess water on the surface was carefully wiped off with filter paper. The final weight was recorded (M2). Each treatment was replicated three times, resulting in a total of 36 cutting ring samples. During the water adsorption process, a 500 g iron weight was used to compact the soil samples to minimize the amount of swelling caused by water. The cutting ring was placed on a bracket to facilitate the drainage of gravitational water from the soil after conducting the saturated hydraulic conductivity experiment. The weight was recorded after a standing period of 12 h (M3). Subsequently, the samples were dried in an oven at 105 °C until they reached a constant weight, and the dry weight was recorded (M4).
Soil BD, residual moisture after free drainage (RM), and porosity (i.e., TP, CP, and NCP) were calculated using the following equations [35]:
B D = M 4 − M 0 V 0
R M = M 3 − M 4 M 4 − M 0 × 100 %
S C = M 2 − M 4 M 4 − M 0 × 100 %
T P = M 2 − M 4 V 0 × 100 %
C P = M 3 − M 4 V 0 × 100 %
N C P = M 2 − M 3 V 0 × 100 %
where V0 is the volume of the cutting ring (100 cm3).
Ks was estimated in the laboratory based on the saturated packed soil samples using the constant-head method [12]. Briefly, an empty cutting ring was placed at the upper end of the setup [31], and the interface was sealed with adhesive tape and melted wax to prevent water leakage. The cutting ring was then positioned on a funnel rack, with a funnel placed above a beaker to collect the infiltration water. A steady water level of 5 cm was maintained in the cutting ring. Employing a Mariotte bottle (Cairusuye, Nanjing, China) for the purpose of water supply. Water entering the beaker was measured at a 2 min interval, after the first drop was released from the funnel. The experiment continued until a stable infiltration rate was achieved. The saturated infiltration rate (V) was calculated using the following equation:
V = 10 Q n S × T n
where Qn indicates the volume of water that infiltrates in two minutes once steady infiltration is achieved (mL), S is the area of the cutting ring (cm2), and Tn indicates the duration of time (min). The soil Ks (mm·min−1) was then calculated using the following equation:
Ks = V × L h + L
where L is the thickness of the soil layer (the height of the cutting ring) (cm) and h represents fluid head difference across the soil samples (cm).

2.3. Statistical Analysis

A two-way ANOVA was conducted to assess the impact of the charcoal application dose, soil type, and their interaction on soil BD, TP, CP, NCP, RM, SC, and Ks. The least significant difference (LSD) post hoc test was used for multiple comparisons at p = 0.05. Pearson correlation analysis was performed to examine the relationships between soil’s hydraulic and physical properties. All statistical analyses were conducted using R (v4.2.2).

3. Results

3.1. Soil Bulk Density and Porosity

The application of charcoal had a significant impact on soil BD, TP, CP and NCP, as did the interaction effect of charcoal application dose and soil type on soil BD, TP and CP (p < 0.001, Table 2). Compared to the unamended control soils, charcoal application resulted in a significant reduction in BD for both sandy and loamy soils (p < 0.001, Figure 2A). The minimum charcoal application dose that led to a significant decrease in BD differed by soil type, with doses of 10% and 1% in loamy and sandy soils, respectively (p < 0.001, Figure 2A). Charcoal applied at a 20% dose resulted in the greatest reduction in soil BD, and the reduction was found to be 22.21% and 33.12% for loamy and sandy soil, respectively. The application of charcoal at a dose of 20% resulted in a significant increase in TP and CP for both soil types (p < 0.001, Figure 2B,C). However, soil NCP significantly decreased after the application of charcoal, except for loamy soil at a 1% application dose (p < 0.001, Table 2). Appling charcoal at a 20% dose significantly decreased the NCP by 76.62% in loamy soil and 70.32% in sandy soil (Figure 2D). The BD and NCP of sandy soil were significantly higher than those of loamy soil, while TP and CP showed an opposite trend (p < 0.001, Figure 2).

3.2. Soil Residual Moisture After Free Drainage and Saturated Capacity

The application of charcoal had a significant impact on soil RM and SC (Figure 3), and the interaction effect of charcoal application and soil type on soil RM and SC was significant (p < 0.001, Table 2). For loamy soil, a minimum charcoal application dose of 10% resulted in a significant increase in RM (p < 0.001), while a 20% application significantly enhanced SC (p < 0.001). In sandy soil, a minimum application of 5% led to significant increases in both RM (p < 0.001) and SC (p < 0.001). Charcoal applied at a dose of 20% significantly increased the RM and SC of loamy soil by 29.92% and 26.80%, respectively. For sandy soil, RM and SC increased by 49.04% and 43.79% after charcoal was applied in a 20% dose, respectively (Figure 3). The RM of loamy soil did not significantly change when the charcoal application dose was below 5%. The RM and SC of sandy soil were significantly lower than those of loamy soil (p < 0.001).

3.3. Soil Saturated Infiltration Rate and Hydraulic Conductivity

The application of charcoal had a significant impact on soil Ks, and the interaction effect of charcoal application and soil type on soil Ks was significant (p < 0.001, Table 2). As shown in Figure 4, soil water infiltration rates decreased gradually and reached a plateau over time. Specifically, the water infiltration rate of loamy soil stabilized after 12 min, while the water infiltration rate of sandy soil stabilized after 24 min (Figure 4A,B). The charcoal application dose had no significant impact on the stabilized infiltration rate for either loamy or sandy soils (p > 0.05, Figure 4A,B). Charcoal applied at a 3% dose resulted in a significant increase in Ks in sandy soil (p < 0.001, Figure 4D), while there was no significant effect on Ks in loamy soil (p > 0.05, Figure 4C).

3.4. Relationships Between Soil Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity and Soil Characteristics

For sandy soil, Ks was positively correlated with BD (p < 0.05, Figure 5B) and negatively correlated with TP, CP, RM, and SC (p < 0.05, Figure 5B). There was no significant correlation between soil Ks and soil BD, porosity, RM, and SC in loamy soil (Figure 5A). For both soils, RM and SC were negatively correlated with BD and positively correlated with TP and CP. RM was negatively correlated with NCP in both soils, while a significant negative relationship between SC and NCP was only observed for sandy soil (Figure 5B).

4. Discussion

4.1. Effects of Fire-Derived Charcoal on Soil Water Retention Capacity

Our study found that soil RM and SC significantly increased after the application of charcoal at higher doses, indicating that the incorporation of charcoal can enhance soil water retention capacity. Our findings were consistent with those of Karer et al., who reported that adding beech woody biomass charcoal to loamy soil increased the soil water retention capacity [36]. Similarly, Koide et al. found that the water retention capacity (as indicted by the field capacity) of four soils of varying texture increased significantly after the application of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) shoots biochar [37]. Charcoal has a high specific surface area, charge density, and porous structure. As a result, it allows soil particles to achieve better adsorption of water molecules, which causes a thicker water layer or film to form [38]. Consequently, free water in the soil’s pore space becomes bound water, increasing soil water retention.
We found that the extent of enhancement on residual moisture after free drainage increased with the amount of fire-derived charcoal that was incorporated. This was consistent with findings of previous studies which reported that soil water retention, as indicated by field capacity, significantly improved as the biochar application dose increased [39,40]. According to a recent meta-analysis, the greatest improvement in soil water retention capacity was observed at a 10% biochar addition dose [41]. Kang et al. also found that the soil water retention capacity of sandy loamy soil increased with the amount of maize (Zea mays L.) biochar applied [42]. The improvement in soil water retention capacity with the increase in charcoal incorporation may be a function of increases in soil porosity and a subsequent increase in soil specific area [40,43]. In this study, total porosity and capillary porosity significantly increased along with the charcoal application doses. Additionally, positive correlations were observed between RM and both total and capillary porosity, suggesting that the enhancement of soil water retention capacity with increasing charcoal amount was due to its improvement of soil porosity.
Our study also demonstrated that the effect of fire-deposited charcoal on water retention was more pronounced in sandy soil than in loamy soil, and a higher application dose of charcoal was needed in loamy soil (10%) than sandy soil (5%) to produce a statistically significant effect on the residual moisture after free drainage (Figure 3A). This was in line with the findings of Cheng et al., who found that applying biochar improved soil water retention more in sandy soil than in loamy soil [44]. Similarly, a meta-analysis study reported that the effect of biochar on soil water retention depends on soil texture, with coarse-textured soils showing the greatest response [41]. There are more large pores that allow for rapid water movement in coarse- than fine-textured soils, and charcoal particles can fill up these large pores, reducing water movement and consequently increasing water retention. Moreover, the inherent variation in water retention capacity might further moderate the effect of charcoal additions. Since the initial water retention capacity of loamy soil was significantly greater than that of sandy soil, more biochar would be needed to produce a significant increase in water retention. Our findings indicate that the influence of charcoal incorporation on soil water retention depends on soil texture, and that soil type should be considered when managing charcoal in ecosystems affected by fire.

4.2. Effect of Fire-Derived Charcoal on Soil’s Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity

Our results showed that the response of Ks to fire-deposited charcoal varied with soil type, whereas inconsistent responses of Ks to biochar application in various soil textures have been observed in previous studies [41,45,46]. In this study, we found that biochar applied at a dose of 3% significantly increased Ks in sandy soil, which might be due to the formation of microporosity by pore clogging [47]. Similarly, Rabbi et al. reported that the biochar-induced increase in Ks was mainly observed in sandy soils [33]. However, charcoal applied to loamy soil did not significantly alter Ks when compared to the control in this study (Figure 4C), which is consistent with the findings of previous studies [29,48]. Although significant effects of biochar application on total porosity were observed in both sandy and loamy soils in this study, the different response of Ks to biochar indicated that soil’s hydraulic conductivity was not only controlled by total porosity but also by pore space geometry and pore size distribution [41]. Moreover, the effects of biochar on soil hydraulic properties such as Ks might also be related to the inherent variations in the water retention capacity of soil textural classes. As a result, loamy soil with a higher water-retention capacity responded to charcoal application less than sandy soil.
The response of Ks to fire-deposited charcoal was also related to the application doses. In the present study, we observed a unimodal dose–response of Ks to charcoal in sandy soil. A recent meta-analysis reported that Ks did not significantly increase at high doses of biochar application compared to the low doses, regardless of the soil types and environmental conditions [33], which could be attributed to several potential explanations. Firstly, the particle size of charcoal in this study was less than 2 mm, the texture of the sand was coarse and many macropores existed, and the excessive application of charcoal may have caused blockage of the soil macropores. Secondly, after the incorporation of fire-derived charcoal in sandy soil, decreased hydraulic conductivity occurred as a result of charcoal absorbing some water and led to a further decline in soil Ks [25,49]. Furthermore, the specific mechanism driving the response of Ks in sandy soil to charcoal addition requires further investigation.

5. Conclusions

The incorporation of fire-derived charcoal at higher application doses significantly enhanced the physical properties and water retention capacity of loamy and sandy soils in subtropical forests. Charcoal was more effective at improving the physical properties of sandy soil compared to loamy soil. In both loamy and sandy soils, fire-derived charcoal enhanced soil residual moisture after free drainage and saturated water content, while it did not significantly affect soil water infiltration capacity. Additionally, the improvement in soil water retention tended to increase with the amount of charcoal applied. In comparison to loamy soil, incorporating fire-derived charcoal into sandy soil is more beneficial for enhancing the water retention capacity, with the positive effects magnifying at higher application rates. Future research should focus on understanding the biophysical feedback mechanisms of charcoal with different particle sizes in subtropical forest soil and explore the underlying processes affecting soil hydraulic characteristics.

Author Contributions

L.C.: Conceptualization, sampling and analysis, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing—original draft; K.W.: Sampling and analysis, methodology; Z.Y.: Sampling and analysis, methodology; X.L.: Conceptualization, editing manuscript; D.Z.: Conceptualization, editing manuscript; Y.W.: Overall guidance, conceptualization, editing manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was financially supported by the Science and Technology Innovation Fund of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, China (No. KFB23091A).

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Hayley Peter-Contesse for improving the language of this manuscript. We are grateful to Shiqiang Liang, Qiang Yan, Bingtao Wang, Mengfan Ren and Jiarui Man for their assistance with the field sampling and lab analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. Leys, B.A.; Marlon, J.R.; Umbanhowar, C.; Vannière, B. Global fire history of grassland biomes. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 8, 8831–8852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Neary, D.G. Forest Soil Disturbance: Implications of Factors Contributing to the Wildland Fire Nexus. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2019, 83, S228–S243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mansoor, S.; Farooq, I.; Kachroo, M.M.; Mahmoud, A.E.D.; Fawzy, M.; Popescu, S.M.; Alyemeni, M.; Sonne, C.; Rinklebe, J.; Ahmad, P. Elevation in wildfire frequencies with respect to the climate change. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 301, 113769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Turco, M.; Abatzoglou, J.T.; Herrera, S.; Zhuang, Y.; Jerez, S.; Lucas, D.D.; AghaKouchak, A.; Cvijanovic, I. Anthropogenic climate change impacts exacerbate summer forest fires in California. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2023, 120, e2213815120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tiedemann, A.R.; Klemmedson, J.O.; Bull, E.L. Solution of forest health problems with prescribed fire: Are forest productivity and wildlife at risk? For. Ecol. Manag. 2000, 127, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fernandes, P.M.; Botelho, H.S. A review of prescribed burning effectiveness in fire hazard reduction. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2003, 12, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wang, Y.; Zheng, J.; Liu, X.; Yan, Q.; Hu, Y. Short-term impact of fire-deposited charcoal on soil microbial community abundance and composition in a subtropical plantation in China. Geoderma 2020, 359, 113992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fultz, L.M.; Moore-Kucera, J.; Dathe, J.; Davinic, M.; Perry, G.; Wester, D.; Schwilk, D.W.; Rideout-Hanzak, S. Forest wildfire and grassland prescribed fire effects on soil biogeochemical processes and microbial communities: Two case studies in the semi-arid Southwest. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2016, 99, 118–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Alcañiz, M.; Outeiro, L.; Francos, M.; Úbeda, X. Effects of prescribed fires on soil properties: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 613, 944–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ebel, B.A.; Moody, J.A. Synthesis of soil-hydraulic properties and infiltration timescales in wildfire-affected soils. Hydrol. Process. 2017, 31, 324–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Moragues-Saitua, L.; Arias-González, A.; Gartzia-Bengoetxea, N. Effects of biochar and wood ash on soil hydraulic properties: A field experiment involving contrasting temperate soils. Geoderma 2017, 305, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lim, T.; Spokas, K.; Feyereisen, G.; Novak, J. Predicting the impact of biochar additions on soil hydraulic properties. Chemosphere 2016, 142, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Toková, L.; Igaz, D.; Horák, J.; Aydin, E. Effect of Biochar Application and Re-Application on Soil Bulk Density, Porosity, Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity, Water Content and Soil Water Availability in a Silty Loam Haplic Luvisol. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Villagra-Mendoza, K.; Horn, R. Effect of biochar on the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity of two amended soils. Int. Agrophys. 2018, 32, 373–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Quigley, K.M.; Kolka, R.; Sturtevant, B.R.; Dickinson, M.B.; Kern, C.C.; Miesel, J.R. Restoring open canopy pine barrens from the ground up: Repeated burns correspond with increased soil hydraulic conductivity. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 767, 144258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Savage, S.M. Mechanism of fire-induced water repellency in soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1974, 38, 1213–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Certini, G. Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: A review. Oecologia 2005, 143, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. DeBano, L. The role of fire and soil heating on water repellency in wildland environments: A review. J. Hydrol. 2000, 231, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. MacDonald, L.H.; Huffman, E.L. Post-fire Soil Water Repellency: Persistence and soil moisture thresholds. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2004, 68, 1729–1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Alewell, C.; Ringeval, B.; Ballabio, C.; Robinson, D.A.; Panagos, P.; Borrelli, P. Global phosphorus shortage will be aggravated by soil erosion. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 4546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Liu, B.; Xie, Y.; Li, Z.; Liang, Y.; Zhang, W.; Fu, S.; Yin, S.; Wei, X.; Zhang, K.; Wang, Z.; et al. The assessment of soil loss by water erosion in China. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2020, 8, 430–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chen, J.; Xiao, H.; Li, Z.; Liu, C.; Ning, K.; Tang, C. How effective are soil and water conservation measures (SWCMs) in reducing soil and water losses in the red soil hilly region of China? A meta-analysis of field plot data. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 735, 139517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Lu, J.; Luo, Y.; Huang, J.; Hou, B.; Wang, B.; Ogino, K.; Zhao, J.; Si, H. Evaluating the effects of biochar on the hydraulic properties of acidified soil in China. J. Soils Sediments 2023, 23, 223–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Makoto, K.; Koike, T. Charcoal ecology: Its function as a hub for plant succession and soil nutrient cycling in boreal forests. Ecol. Res. 2021, 36, 4–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bhat, S.A.; Kuriqi, A.; Dar, M.U.D.; Bhat, O.; Sammen, S.S.; Islam, A.R.M.T.; Elbeltagi, A.; Shah, O.; Ai-Ansari, N.; Ali, R.; et al. Application of Biochar for Improving Physical, Chemical, and Hydrological Soil Properties: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Brodowski, S.; John, B.; Flessa, H.; Amelung, W. Aggregate-occluded black carbon in soil. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2006, 57, 539–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Herath, H.; Camps-Arbestain, M.; Hedley, M. Effect of biochar on soil physical properties in two contrasting soils: An Alfisol and an Andisol. Geoderma 2013, 209, 188–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Edeh, I.G.; Mašek, O. The role of biochar particle size and hydrophobicity in improving soil hydraulic properties. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2021, 73, e13138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Laird, D.A.; Fleming, P.; Davis, D.D.; Horton, R.; Wang, B.; Karlen, D.L. Impact of biochar amendments on the quality of a typical Midwestern agricultural soil. Geoderma 2010, 158, 443–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jeffery, S.; Meinders, M.B.; Stoof, C.R.; Bezemer, T.M.; van de Voorde, T.F.; Mommer, L.; van Groenigen, J.W. Biochar application does not improve the soil hydrological function of a sandy soil. Geoderma 2015, 251–252, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Li, S.; Zhang, Y.; Yan, W.; Shangguan, Z. Effect of biochar application method on nitrogen leaching and hydraulic conductivity in a silty clay soil. Soil Tillage Res. 2018, 183, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhou, H.; Fang, H.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, Q.; Chen, C.; Mooney, S.J.; Peng, X.; Du, Z. Biochar enhances soil hydraulic function but not soil aggregation in a sandy loam. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2019, 70, 291–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rabbi, S.M.; Minasny, B.; Salami, S.T.; McBratney, A.B.; Young, I.M. Greater, but not necessarily better: The influence of biochar on soil hydraulic properties. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2021, 72, 2033–2048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Abyaneh, H.Z.; Khodabandehlo, Z.; Bayat, H.; Jovzi, M. The Effect of a Superabsorbent and Biochar on Some Physical and Hydraulic Properties of Two Arable Sandy Loam and Clay Loam Soils. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2022, 22, 2557–2569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Qiu, D.; Xu, R.; Wu, C.; Mu, X.; Zhao, G.; Gao, P. Vegetation restoration improves soil hydrological properties by regulating soil physicochemical properties in the Loess Plateau, China. J. Hydrol. 2022, 609, 127730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Karer, J.; Wimmer, B.; Zehetner, F.; Kloss, S.; Soja, G. Biochar application to temperate soils: Effects on nutrient uptake and crop yield under field conditions. Agric. Food Sci. 2013, 22, 390–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Koide, R.T.; Nguyen, B.T.; Skinner, R.H.; Dell, C.J.; Peoples, M.S.; Adler, P.R.; Drohan, P.J. Biochar amendment of soil improves resilience to climate change. GCB Bioenergy 2015, 7, 1084–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Xu, G.; Sun, J.; Shao, H.; Chang, S.X. Biochar had effects on phosphorus sorption and desorption in three soils with differing acidity. Ecol. Eng. 2014, 62, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Peake, L.R.; Reid, B.J.; Tang, X. Quantifying the influence of biochar on the physical and hydrological properties of dissimilar soils. Geoderma 2014, 235–236, 182–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Fu, G.; Qiu, X.; Xu, X.; Zhang, W.; Zang, F.; Zhao, C. The role of biochar particle size and application rate in promoting the hydraulic and physical properties of sandy desert soil. CATENA 2021, 207, 105607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wang, Y.; Villamil, M.B.; Davidson, P.C.; Akdeniz, N. A meta-analysis on biochar’s effects on soil water properties - new insights and future research challenges. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 685, 741–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Kang, M.W.; Yibeltal, M.; Kim, Y.H.; Oh, S.J.; Lee, J.C.; Kwon, E.E.; Lee, S.S. Enhancement of soil physical properties and soil water retention with biochar-based soil amendments. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 836, 155746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Lehmann, J.; Joseph, S. Biochar for Environmental Management, 1st ed.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  44. Cheng, C.-H.; Lehmann, J.; Thies, J.E.; Burton, S.D.; Engelhard, M.H. Oxidation of black carbon by biotic and abiotic processes. Org. Geochem. 2006, 37, 1477–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhang, J.; Chen, Q.; You, C. Biochar Effect on Water Evaporation and Hydraulic Conductivity in Sandy Soil. Pedosphere 2016, 26, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Alghamdi, A.G.; Alkhasha, A.; Ibrahim, H.M. Effect of biochar particle size on water retention and availability in a sandy loam soil. J. Saudi Chem. Soc. 2020, 24, 1042–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ren, X.; Wang, F.; Zhang, P.; Guo, J.; Sun, H. Aging effect of minerals on biochar properties and sorption capacities for atrazine and phenanthrene. Chemosphere 2018, 206, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Major, J.; Rondon, M.; Molina, D.; Riha, S.J.; Lehmann, J. Nutrient Leaching in a Colombian Savanna Oxisol Amended with Biochar. J. Environ. Qual. 2012, 41, 1076–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Głąb, T.; Palmowska, J.; Zaleski, T.; Gondek, K. Effect of biochar application on soil hydrological properties and physical quality of sandy soil. Geoderma 2016, 281, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 15 01939 g001
Figure 1. Microstructure (SEM) of the fire-deposited charcoal.
Figure 1. Microstructure (SEM) of the fire-deposited charcoal.
Forests 15 01939 g001
Forests 15 01939 g002
Figure 2. Effects of charcoal on soil bulk density (BD, (A)), total porosity (TP, (B)), capillary porosity (CP, (C)) and non-capillary porosity (NCP, (D)). Different letters indicate significant differences among the charcoal application doses for each soil type (p < 0.05). Data are shown as the mean ± standard deviation.
Figure 2. Effects of charcoal on soil bulk density (BD, (A)), total porosity (TP, (B)), capillary porosity (CP, (C)) and non-capillary porosity (NCP, (D)). Different letters indicate significant differences among the charcoal application doses for each soil type (p < 0.05). Data are shown as the mean ± standard deviation.
Forests 15 01939 g002
Forests 15 01939 g003
Figure 3. Effects of charcoal on soil residual moisture after free drainage (RM, (A)) and saturation capacity (SC, (B)). Different letters indicate significant differences among the charcoal application doses for each soil type (p < 0.05). Data are shown as the mean ± standard deviation.
Figure 3. Effects of charcoal on soil residual moisture after free drainage (RM, (A)) and saturation capacity (SC, (B)). Different letters indicate significant differences among the charcoal application doses for each soil type (p < 0.05). Data are shown as the mean ± standard deviation.
Forests 15 01939 g003
Forests 15 01939 g004
Figure 4. The effects of charcoal on the soil infiltration rate (A,B) and saturated hydraulic conductivity (C,D). Ks—saturated hydraulic conductivity. Different letters indicate significant differences among the charcoal application doses for each soil type (p < 0.05). Data are shown as the mean ± standard deviation.
Figure 4. The effects of charcoal on the soil infiltration rate (A,B) and saturated hydraulic conductivity (C,D). Ks—saturated hydraulic conductivity. Different letters indicate significant differences among the charcoal application doses for each soil type (p < 0.05). Data are shown as the mean ± standard deviation.
Forests 15 01939 g004
Forests 15 01939 g005
Figure 5. Correlation analysis of soil hydraulic properties with physical properties for loamy (A) and sandy (B) soil. Ks—saturated hydraulic conductivity; BD—bulk density; RM—residual moisture after free drainage; TP—total porosity; CP—capillary porosity; NCP—non-capillary porosity; SC—saturated water content. Red indicates a positive correlation and blue indicates a negative correlation. *, **, and *** denote significant differences at the p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001 levels, respectively.
Figure 5. Correlation analysis of soil hydraulic properties with physical properties for loamy (A) and sandy (B) soil. Ks—saturated hydraulic conductivity; BD—bulk density; RM—residual moisture after free drainage; TP—total porosity; CP—capillary porosity; NCP—non-capillary porosity; SC—saturated water content. Red indicates a positive correlation and blue indicates a negative correlation. *, **, and *** denote significant differences at the p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001 levels, respectively.
Forests 15 01939 g005
Table 1. Physiochemical properties of the tested soils.
Table 1. Physiochemical properties of the tested soils.
Soil TypeTotal Carbon
(g·kg−1)		Total Nitrogen
(g·kg−1)		Granular Composition (%)pH
ClaySandSilt
Loamy soil22.981.2724.6740.2335.104.96
Sandy soil4.180.552.7492.394.875.57
Table 2. Results of two-way ANOVA analysis on the effects of charcoal addition dose and soil type on soil’s physical and hydraulic properties.
Table 2. Results of two-way ANOVA analysis on the effects of charcoal addition dose and soil type on soil’s physical and hydraulic properties.
FactorsBDTPCPNCPRMSCKs
Charcoal (C)*********************
Soil type (S)*********************
C × S*********NS********
BD—bulk density; TP—total porosity; CP—capillary porosity; NCP—non-capillary porosity; RM—residual moisture after free drainage; SC—saturation capacity; Ks—saturated hydraulic conductivity. ** and *** indicate significant differences at p < 0.01 and p < 0.001, respectively. NS indicates not statistically significant.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cheng, L.; Wang, K.; Yao, Z.; Liu, X.; Zhao, D.; Wang, Y. Naturally Deposited Charcoal Enhances Water Retention Capacity of Subtropical Forest Soils. Forests 2024, 15, 1939. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15111939

AMA Style

Cheng L, Wang K, Yao Z, Liu X, Zhao D, Wang Y. Naturally Deposited Charcoal Enhances Water Retention Capacity of Subtropical Forest Soils. Forests. 2024; 15(11):1939. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15111939

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cheng, Liutao, Kuan Wang, Zhi Yao, Xian Liu, Dan Zhao, and Yuzhe Wang. 2024. "Naturally Deposited Charcoal Enhances Water Retention Capacity of Subtropical Forest Soils" Forests 15, no. 11: 1939. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15111939

APA Style

Cheng, L., Wang, K., Yao, Z., Liu, X., Zhao, D., & Wang, Y. (2024). Naturally Deposited Charcoal Enhances Water Retention Capacity of Subtropical Forest Soils. Forests, 15(11), 1939. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15111939

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop